They will, after review, laugh at my bank balance, wonder how/why I ever married such a dick as my ex turned out to be, find out I have too many brownies in my freezer*, and know I pay my bills on time.

If they want to be bored to freaking death, fine.

*the kind of brownies you eat, not the baby girl scout kind

(OK, if any of you want to eat the baby girl scout kind, seek help, that's just ewwww)

UberDave: Sure. But why would Israel care if I performed 2437 searches for "big ass" porn?

/In the last month

>> in case you ever run for political office, they'll have a good file built up on you, so they can blackmail you if you don't vote the way you're supposed to. Just like what is done for most of our current legislators.

Headso:That's creepy, they are not beholden to any of our pesky privacy laws or rights to be secure in our "papers" either, so that's nice...

Except they are beholden to a professional and legal code of silence that bars them from using and/or passing that information to others. You know, the same code that Edward Snowden broke before he defected to Russia.

The five-page memorandum, termed an agreement between the US and Israeli intelligence agencies "pertaining to the protection of US persons", repeatedly stresses the constitutional rights of Americans to privacy and the need for Israeli intelligence staff to respect these rights.

But this is undermined by the disclosure that Israel is allowed to receive "raw Sigint" - signal intelligence. The memorandum says: "Raw Sigint includes, but is not limited to, unevaluated and unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice and Digital Network Intelligence metadata and content."

Tellingthem:James!: Why does the Guardian article contradict the source document they're using to make their claim?

Hmmm how exactly? I'm not seeing it.

The NSA isn't freely dumping information to Israel. There is an entire review process for information that may have info pertaining to citizens and it's outlined in the document that the Guardian is using as its source.

WTF Indeed:Headso: That's creepy, they are not beholden to any of our pesky privacy laws or rights to be secure in our "papers" either, so that's nice...

Except they are beholden to a professional and legal code of silence that bars them from using and/or passing that information to others. You know, the same code that Edward Snowden broke before he defected to Russia.

WTF Indeed:Headso: That's creepy, they are not beholden to any of our pesky privacy laws or rights to be secure in our "papers" either, so that's nice...

Except they are beholden to a professional and legal code of silence that bars them from using and/or passing that information to others. You know, the same code that Edward Snowden broke before he defected to Russia.

some how I doubt they'll break the "ethical code" to warn people about spying on Americans and might break it to invade privacy instead.

I think this has already been said on the thread, but what the article and the headline is implying seems to be the opposite of what the memo is stating. Also, the memo states we have similar agreements with the UK and most of its former colonies.

WTF Indeed:Headso: That's creepy, they are not beholden to any of our pesky privacy laws or rights to be secure in our "papers" either, so that's nice...

Except they are beholden to a professional and legal code of silence that bars them from using and/or passing that information to others. You know, the same code that Edward Snowden broke before he defected to Russia.

But that's the point

If an American entity misuses NSA data, you at least have a (hypothetical) chance of holding them to account - damages lawsuit etc.

James!:Tellingthem: James!: Why does the Guardian article contradict the source document they're using to make their claim?

Hmmm how exactly? I'm not seeing it.

The NSA isn't freely dumping information to Israel. There is an entire review process for information that may have info pertaining to citizens and it's outlined in the document that the Guardian is using as its source.

including, but not limited to. Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) technology and equipment and raw SIGINT data signals intelligence information that has not been reviewed for foreign intelligence purposes or minimized)

This agreement will apply to any SIGINT raw traffic, technology, or enabling that NSA mayprovide to ISNU. REL)

Raw SIGINT is any SIGINT acquired either as a result of search and development, or targeted collection operations against a particular foreign intelligence target before the information has been evaluated for foreign intelligence and minimized. Raw SIGINT includes, but is not limited to, unevaluated and unminimized transcripts, gists. facsimiles, telex, voice and Digital Network Intelligence (DNI) metadata andcontent.

- Minimization is the process used to determine whether U.S. person information encountered in raw SIGINT is essential to assess or understand the significance of the foreign intelligence.

But in that document it states that it can include raw and not reviewed intelligence? So unless I missed something how is it wrong?